Clinical Autonomic Research

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 23–28 | Cite as

Autonomic response to real versus illusory motion (vection)

  • Mitsuhiro Aoki
  • Kai V. Thilo
  • Peter Burchill
  • John F. Golding
  • Michael A. Gresty
Research Paper


This study explored the cardiovascular responses to illusions of self-motion (vection) induced in normal subjects according to the hypothesis that vection may be a model for vertigo in vestibular disease. Responses were obtained from 10 men who were exposed to rapid tilts of 20° and 30° rolling from the upright position down to the right or left shoulder. These responses were compared with those evoked during the illusion of roll-tilt vection provoked by a torsionally rotating visual field. Comparisons were made between 10-second data epochs before and after stimulus onset. In response to vection, blood pressure (BP) in the radial artery rose consistently in six subjects, and in all of these, a pressor response to real tilt was also observed. The remaining four subjects consistently had decreased BP in response to vection, and their BPs were affected little by tilt. Subjects whose BP increased with vection and tilt may have been dominated by tendency to arousal, whereas those whose BP decreased may reveal the more appropriate response to tilt from the upright position, which is a decrease in BP. This may reflect individual stereotypes and differences in the relative contributions of somatosensory and vestibular control of autonomic regulation.

Key words

vertigo vection tilt blood pressure optokinetic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Yates BJ. Vestibular influences on the sympathetic nervous system.Brain Res Brain Res Rev 1992; 17:51–59.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dichgans J, Brandt Th. Visual-vestibular interaction: effects on self-motion perception and postural control. In:Handbook of sensory physiology, vol. VIII. Held R, Leibowitz HW, Teuber HL, eds. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1978. pp. 755–804.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dichgans J, Brandt Th. Optokinetic motion sickness and pseudocoriolis effects induced by moving visual stimuli.Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1973; 76:339–348.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henn V, Young LR, Finley C. Vestibular nucleus units in alert monkeys are also influenced by moving visual fields.Brain Res 1974; 71:144–149.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wood SJ, Ramsdell CD, Mullen TJ, Oman CM, Harm DL, Paloski WH. Transient cardio-respiratory responses to visually induced virtual tilts. Poster 5. Available at: ∼dizzymrc/Abstracts.pdf. Accessed September 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biaggioni I, Costa F, Kaufmann H. Vestibular influences on autonomic cardiovascular control in humans.J Vestib Res 1998; 8: 35–41.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson WH, Jongkees LBW. Motion sickness. In:Handbook of sensory physiology, vol. VI. Kornhuber HH, ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1974. pp. 389–399.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu S, Grant WF, Stern RF, Koch KL. Motion sickness severity and physiological correlates during repeated exposures to a rotating optokinetic drum.Aviat Space Environ Med 1991; 62:308–314.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shortt TL, Ray CA. Sympathetic and vascular responses to head-down flexion in humans.Am J Physiol 1997; 272 (Heart Circ Physiol 41): H1780-H1784.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sagawa K, Inooka H, Ino-oka E, Takahashi T. On an ambulance stretcher suspension concerned with the reduction of patient's blood pressure variation.Proc Inst Mech Eng 1997; 211:199–208.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spiegel EA. Effect of labyrinthine reflexes on the vegetative nervous system.Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1946; 44:61–72.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindsay JR, Oppenheimer MJ, Wycis HT, Spiegel EA. Receptor apparatus of vestibulovasomotor reaction.Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1945; 42:257–266.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costa F, Lavin P, Robertson D, Biaggioni I. Effect of neurovestibular stimulation on autonomic regulation.Clin Auton Res 1995; 5:289–293.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yates BJ, Aoki M, Burchill P, Bronstein AM, Gresty MA. Cardiovascular responses elicited by linear acceleration in humans.Exp Brain Res 1999; 125:476–484.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bini G, Hagbarth P, Hynninen P, Wallin BG. Thermoregulatory and rhythm-generating mechanisms governing the sudomotor and vasoconstrictor outflow in human cutaneous nerves.J Physiol (Lond) 1980; 306:537–552.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davison MA, Koss MC. Brainstem loci for activation of electrodermal response in the cat.Am J Physiol 1975; 229:930–934.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishikawa T, Miyazawa T. Sympathetic responses evoked by vestibular stimulation and their interaction with somatosympathetic reflexes.J Auton Nerv Syst 1980; 1:243–254.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Collins WE, Lentz JM. Some psychological correlates of motion sickness susceptibility.Aviat Space Environ Med 1977; 48:587–94.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Golding JF, Finch MI, Stott JRR. Frequency effect of 0.35–1.0Hz horizontal translational oscillation on motion sickness and the somatogravic illusion.Aviat Space Environ Med 1997; 68:396–402.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitsuhiro Aoki
    • 1
  • Kai V. Thilo
    • 3
  • Peter Burchill
    • 3
  • John F. Golding
    • 2
  • Michael A. Gresty
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyGifu University School of MedicineGifuJapan
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK
  3. 3.Medical Research Council, Human Movement and Balance UnitNational Hospital for Neurology and NeurosurgeryLondonUK

Personalised recommendations